o 
CI4K& 


MORLEY 

SCHOOL  OF 

AMERICAN 

ARCHAEOLOGY 

PAPERS 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/correlationofmayOOmorlrich 


Arrlfai?0l00tral  MBtiMt  of  Am^rira 


PAPERS 


School  of  American 
Archaeology 


nutiiber  Eleven 

The  Correlation  of  Maya  and  Christian 
Chronology 


BY 


SYLVYANUS  GRISWOLD  MORLEY 


19IO 


r    I^ANCnOf  RARY 


Institute 
of  aimerica 


THE    CORRELATION    OF    MAYA    AND    CHRISTIAN 
CHRONOLOGY 


One  of  the  most  important  problems  in  American  Archae- 
ology is  the  correlation  of  the  Maya  system  of  counting  time 
with  our  own.  Long  before  the  first  appearance  of  the  white 
man  in  the  Western  World,  the  Maya  race  of  Central  America 
and  Southern  Mexico  had  developed  an  accurate  system  of 
reckoning  time  and  recording  events.  So  accurate  indeed  is 
this  aboriginal  chronology  that  were  it  possible  to  translate  a 
single  Maya  date  into  the  corresponding  notation  of  our  own 
calendar,  the  age  of  all  the  great  cities  of  the  Maya  culture 
would  be  known,  probably  more  exactly  than  the  age  of  Nineveh, 
Babylon,  or  even  Rome.  Already  the  broader  lines  of  Maya 
History  have  been  traced.  The  general  northward  trend  of 
migration  within  the  area  has  been  established.  The  rise  and 
fall  of  the  larger  cities  relative  to  each  other  have  been  worked 
out.  Even  the  periods  of  time  during  which  they  were  occu- 
pied, expressed  in  Maya  notation,  have  been  reduced  to  years, 
as  we  understand  that  term.  There  remains,  however,  the 
much  more  difficult  task  of  bringing  Maya  Chronology  into 
accordance  with  our  own,  and  of  changing  the  dates  of  the  one 
system  into  the  corresponding  dates  of  the  other.  'To  accom- 
plish this,  some  kind  of  an  American  Rosetta  Stone  is  required, 
which  will  set  forth  the  Maya  equivalent  of  a  known  date  in 
our  own  calendar.  The  nearest  approach  to  such  a  chrono- 
logical key  is  that  class  of  manuscripts  known  as  The  Books 
of  Chilan  Balam. 

The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam  were  copied  or  compiled  in 
Yucatan  by  natives  during  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth,  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  from  much  older  manuscripts  now  lost 

American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  Second  Series.     Journal  of  the  iqq 

Archaeological  Institute  of  America,  Vol.  XIV  (1910),  No.  2.  ^ 


194  SYLVAN  us   G.    MORLET 

or  destroyed.  They  are  written  in  the  Maya  language  in  Latin 
characters,  and  treat,  in  part  at  least,  of  the  history  of  the  country 
before  the  Spanish  Conquest.  Each  town  seems  to  have  had  its 
own  book  of  Chilan  Balam,  distinguished  from  others  by  the 
addition  of  the  name  of  the  place  where  it  was  written,  as:  The 
Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Mani,  The  Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of 
Tizimin,  and  so  on.  Although  much  of  the  material  presented 
in  these  manuscripts  is  apparently  contradictory  and  obscure, 
their  importance  as  original  historical  sources  cannot  be  over- 
estimated, since  they  constitute  the  only  native  accounts  of  the 
early  history  of  the  Maya  race,  which  have  survived  the  van- 
dalism of  the  Spanish  Conquerors.  Of  the  sixteen  Books  of 
Chilan  Balam  now  extant,  only  three,  those  of  the  towns  of 
Mani,  Tizimin,  and  Chumayel,  contain  historical  matter.  These 
have  been  translated  into  English,  and  published  by  Dr.  D. 
G.  Brinton  under  the  title  of  "  The  Maya  Chronicles."  This 
translation  with  a  few  corrections  has  been  freely  consulted  in 
the  following  discussion. 

In  all,  there  are  five  of  these  chronicles :  one  from  the  Mani 
manuscript,  one  from  the  Tizimin  manuscript,  and  three  from 
the  Chumayel  manuscript.  Each  of  these  chronicles  contains 
a  more  or  less  consecutive  arrangement  of  twenty -year  periods 
called,  in  Maya,  katuns,  after  each  one  of  which  is  set  down 
the  event  or  events  that  occurred  during  its  course.  These 
accounts  arc,  in  reality,  little  more  than  chronological  synopses 
of  the  history  of  the  country.  They  are  called  in  The  Books  of 
Chilan  Balam  variously  :  "  The  Record  of  the  Katuns,"  "  The 
Record  of  the  Count  of  the  Katuns,"  "  The  Arrangement  of 
the  Katuns"  and  "  The  Order  of  the  Katuns."  These  names 
suggest,  what  the  manuscripts  are  in  fact  found  to  contain, 
sequences  of  katuns  or  twenty-year  periods  during  which 
happened  the  events  recorded. 

When  it  became  necessary  to  fix  an  event  more  closely  than 
as  occurring  within  a  period  of  twenty  years,  the  division  of 
time  next  smaller  than  the  katun  was  also  used.  This  was 
called  by  the  Maj^as  the  tun,  and  contained  360  days,  roughly 
corresponding  to  our  own  year.  The  statement  that  an  event 
occurred  in  any  given  tun  of  a  katun  fixed  that  event  to  a  defi- 
nite year  within  a  period  of  twenty  years.     Just  as  we  might 


MAYA   AND   CHRISTIAN  CHRONOLOGY  195 

describe  the  Discovery  of  America  as  occurring  in  the  second 
year  of  the  tenth  decade  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

Katuns  were  named  after  the  days  with  which  they  began, 
or,  as  some  contend,  after  the  days  with  which  they  ended. 
This  difference  of  opinion,  liowever,  is  merely  a  quibble  as  to 
the  starting-point,  and  does  not  affect  the  sequence  of  the 
katuns,  which  is  the  same  in  either  case.  In  this  discussion, 
katuns  are  regarded  as  having  been  named  after  the  days  with 
which  they  began.  The  Maya  katun  always  began  with  a  day 
called  Ahau,  and  the  different  katuns  were  distinguished  from 
each  other  by  a  numerical  coefficient  ranging  from  1  to  13  prefixed 
to  the  name  of  this  day.  The  beginning  days  of  katuns,  how- 
ever, did  not  follow  each  other  in  the  order  that  would  suggest 
itself  as  natural  to  us,  namely:  1  Ahau,  2  Ahau,  3  Ahau,  and  so 
on,  but  in  the  following  order :  13  Ahau,  11  Ahau,  9  Ahau,  7 
Ahau,  5  Ahau,  3  Ahau,  1  Ahau,  12  Ahau,  10  Ahau,  8  Ahau, 
6  Ahau,  4  Ahau,  2  Aliau,  13  Ahau,  and  so  on.  This  order, 
irregular  as  it  may  appear,  arises  quite  naturally  from  the 
necessities  of  Maya  Chronology.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  any 
given  katun  could  not  recur  until  after  an  interval  of  13  times 
1  katun  or  its  equivalent  20  tuns,  or  after  a  lapse  of  approxi- 
mately 260  of  our  own  years.  Consequently  any  event  stated 
as  occurring  in  any  given  tun  of  any  given  katun  fixed  that 
event  to  a  definite  year  in  a  period  of  260  years,  which  was 
probably  close  enough  for  general  purposes.  No  higher  unit 
of  time  than  the  katun  appears  in  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam, 
though  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan  may  well  have  known  a  higher 
unit,  since  the  Mayas  of  the  Usamacinta  region,  an  older  habitat 
of  the  same  culture,  were  familiar  with  a  higher  period  com- 
posed of  20  katuns  or  about  400  years. 

The  events  recorded  in  tlie  five  different  chronicles  agree 
fairly  well  with  each  other,  as  Brinton  demonstrated  in  his 
"  Synopsis  of  Maya  Chronology."  In  some  accounts,  to  be  sure, 
katuns  are  omitted,  and  in  others  they  are  inserted,  and  in  still 
others  the  same  katun  is  repeated  twice  or  even  thrice.  But 
when  all  five  are  studied  comparatively,  each  acts  as  a  check 
upon  the  other,  and  the  context  is  usually  such  that  there  can 
be  but  little  doubt  that  the  Brinton  sequence  is,  in  the  main, 
the  actual  arrangement  of  the  katuns  in  their  proper  order. 


196  SYLVANUS  G,   MORLEY 

According  to  his  arrangement,  70  katuns  elapsed  from  the 
earliest  event  recorded  in  the  Chronicles  to  the  Spanish  Con- 
quest, a  period  of  nearly  1400  years. 

Just  after  Katun  2  Ahau,  in  which  the  first  appearance  of 
the  Spanish  off  the  coast  of  Yucatan  is  mentioned,  there  is 
recorded  a  date  in  both  Maya  and  Christian  notation,  apparently 
with  extreme  accuracy.  This  date  is  the  death  of  a  certain 
native  chief  called  Napot  Xiu,  which  is  said  to  have  occurred 
in  a  Katun  13  Ahau,  while  yet  6  tuns  were  lacking  before  the 
end  of  that  katun  on  the  day  9  Imix,  which  was  the  18th  day 
of  the  month  Zip.  The  chronicler  further  states  that  this 
event  took  place  in  the  Year  of  Our  Lord  1536. 

On  the  basis  of  this  statement,  Mr.  Charles  P.  Bowditch 
assigned  the  date  34  a.d.  to  Stela  9  at  Copan,  although  in  so 
doing  he  was  obliged  first  to  make  two  changes  in  the  original 
text.  Another  correlation  of  Maya  and  Christian  Chronology 
is  that  made  by  Professor  Eduard  Seler  on  the  strength  of  a 
passage  in  The  Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Mani.  This  passage 
states  that  the  beginning  day  of  Katun  5  Ahau,  which  was  in 
the  Year  of  Our  Lord  L593,  fell  on  the  loth  day  of  the  month 
Tzec,  although  a  correction  in  the  text  is  again  necessary,  before 
this  statement  can  be  utilized.  Professor  Seler's  correlation 
gives  1255  B.C.  as  the  date  of  Stela  9  at  Copan,  nearly  1300 
years  earlier  than  Mr.  Bowditch's  date  for  the  same  monument. 

To  accept  either  Mr.  Bowditch's  correlation  or  Professor 
Seler's,  two  important  postulates  are  necessary: 

(1)  That  the  day  Ahau  is  shifted  forward  from  the  2d,  7th, 
12th,  or  17th  positions  in  the  month  as  found  in  The  Books  of 
Chilan  Balam  to  the  3d,  8th,  13th,  or  18th  positions  so  as  to 
agree  with  the  inscriptions  of  the  Usamacinta  area.  This  shift 
includes  a  corresponding  change  of  one  place  in  the  position  in 
the  month  of  all  the  other  days ;  and 

(2)  That  this  change  in  no  way  disturbed  the  continuity  of 
the  sequence  of  the  katuns. 

The   first  of   these   postulates,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind, 
necessitates  actual  changes  in  the  original   texts  upon  which 
the  correlations  are  based,  and  the  second  cannot  be  verified^ 
until  we  know  the  exact  nature  of  the  change  which  was  made. 

For  some  unknown  reason  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan  had  gained 


MAYA  AND   CHRISTIAN  CHRONOLOGY  197 

a  day  over  the  older  cities  of  their  culture.  In  the  Usamacinta 
area,  the  day  Ahau  could  be  only  the  3d,  8th,  13th,  or  18th  day 
of  a  month,  and  the  day  Imix,  that  on  which  the  native  chief 
Napot  Xiu  is  said  to  have  died,  could  be  only  the  4th,  9th,  14th, 
or  19th  day  of  a  month.  Now,  in  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam, 
where  this  event  is  recorded,  the  death  of  Napot  Xiu  is  clearly 
stated  to  have  been  on  a  day  Imix  which  was  the  18th  day  of 
the  month  ;  and  in  the  passage  from  The  Book  of  Chilan  Balam 
of  Mani  used  by  Professor  Seler,  the  day  Ahau  is  said  to  be  the 
15th  day  of  a  month,  which  Professor  Seler  would  correct  to 
the  17th.  Judging  from  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  then,  it 
would  seem  that  the  Mayas  of  Yucatan  assigned  a  slightly 
different  position  to  the  days  in  the  month  than  did  the  Mayas 
of  the  Usamacinta  cities,  Copan,  Quirigua,  and  Palenque,  for 
example.  Or,  in  other  words,  that  in  the  course  of  time  a 
change  had  come  about,  so  that  the  day  Ahau  was  no  longer 
the  3d,  8th,  13th,  or  18th  in  the  month,  but  the  2d,  7th,  12th, 
or  17th,  and  similarly  that  the  day  Imix  had  shifted  from  the 
4th,  9th,  14th,  or  19th  position  in  the  month  to  the  3d,  8th,  13th, 
or  18th.  Indeed,  some  kind  of  a  change  or  alteration  in  the 
calendar  is  actually  recorded  in  two  of  the  chronicles  in  these 
words,  "  Then  Pop  was  set  or  counted  in  order,"  Pop  being  the 
first  month  of  the  Maya  year. 

There  is  another  serious  objection  to  these  correlations,  how- 
ever, which  must  be  explained  before  either  of  them  can  be  ac- 
cepted as  definitive.  If  we  substitute  the  Initial  Series  assigned 
by  Mr.  Bowditch  to  the  year  1536,  in  the  sequence  of  the  katuns 
as  given  by  Brinton,  and  count  backward  to  the  Initial  Series 
of  the  Chichen  Itza  lintel,  we  find  that  this  latter  date  occurred, 
according  to  Mr.  Bowditch,  70  years  before  even  the  earliest 
mention  of  Chichen  Itza  in  the  Chronicles,  and  170  years  before 
the  founding  of  the  city. 

Similarly,  Professor  Seler 's  Initial  Series  for  the  year  1593 
gives  the  Initial  Series  of  the  Chichen  Itza  lintel  a  position  in 
the  sequence  of  the  katuns  over  1300  years  before  the  first 
mention  of  that  city  in  the  Chronicles. 

To  explain  away  this  very  evident  anachronism  one  of  two 
assumptions  is  necessary  :  Either  the  Chichen  Itza  Initial  Series 
is  not  a  contemporaneous  date,  or  the  sequence  of  the  katuns,  as 


198  STLVANUS  G.   MORLEY 

given  by  Briiiton,  falls  short  of  the  true  sequence  by  at  least  13 
katuns  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Bowditch's  correlation,  and  77  katuns 
in  the  case  of  Professor  Seler's.  The  first  of  these  assumptions 
is  contrar}^  to  the  generally  accepted  theory  of  Maya  dates;  and 
the  second  is  contrary  to  the  best  reading  of  the  sequence  of  the 
katuns. 

There  is  another,  though  less  vital,  objection,  since  it  in- 
volves no  textual  changes,  to  each  of  these  correlations.  In 
the  passage  used  by  Mr.  Bowditch,  the  statement  that  when 
the  chief  Naput  Xiu  died  6  tuns  were  lacking  before  the  end 
of  the  katun,  is  not  literally  true,  as  Mr.  Bo\yditch  himself  has 
shown,  since  in  reality  6|  tuns  were  lacking,  or  nearly  7.  He 
explains  this,  however,  by  saying  the  scribe  who  recorded  the 
event  took  no  cognizance  of  odd  days,  but  merely  counted  the 
whole  tuns  needed  to  finish  the  katuns.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  date  1255  B.C.  for  Stela  9  at  Copan,  based  upon  Professor 
Seler's  correlation,  is  altogether  too  early.  It  makes  the  great 
cities  of  the  Usamacinta  area  over  3000  years  old,  an  antiquity 
that  may  well  be  doubted,  if  for  no  other  reason  than  the 
remarkable  preservation  of  delicate  sculptures  under  the  action 
of  such  a  destructive  vegetation  as  now  covers  tlie  cities  of  this 
area. 

Before  submitting  my  own  correlation  of  Maya  and  Chris- 
tian Chronology,  it  is  first  necessary  to  speak  of  another  change, 
or,  better,  abbreviation,  in  the  Maya  method  of  recording  events, 
which  was  introduced  after  the  period  of  the  Usamacinta  inscrip- 
tions, but  before  the  period  of  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam. 
The  practice  of  naming  the  katuns  in  The  Books  of  Chilan 
Balam  after  the  days  with  which  they  began  has  already  been 
explained.  In  the  older  area,  however,  a  different  method  of 
recording  dates  was  used;  namely,  the  number  of  cycles, 
katuns,  tuns,  uinals,  and  kins,  which  had  elapsed  from  a  com- 
mon normal  date  4  Ahau,  8  Cumhu  to  the  event  recorded,  were 
stated.  Throughout  the  Usamacinta  area  the  date  4  Ahau,  8 
Cumhu  was  universally  regarded  as  the  starting-point  of  Maya 
Chronology  corresponding  to  our  Birth  of  Christ.  The  state- 
ment that  a  certain  number  of  cycles,  katuns,  tuns,  uinals,  and 
kins  had  elapsed  from  this  normal  date  to  the  date  recorded, 
fixed  such  a  date  so  that  it  could  not  recur,  filling  all  the  given 


MAYA   AND   CHRISTIAN   CHRONOLOGY  199 

conditions,  for  many  thousands  of  years.  For  example,  the  date 
of  Stela  9  at  Copan  in  Maya  notation  of  the  Usaniacinta  area 
is^  9_g_l 0-0-0  8  Ahau,  13  Pax,  which  means  that  9  cycles,  6 
katuns,  10  tuns,  0  uinals,  and  0  kins  had  elapsed  from  the  normal 
date  4  Ahau,  8  Cumhu  to  the  date  recorded,  8  Ahau,  13  Pax. 
This  same  date  in  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam  would  have  been 
recorded  thus :  The  beginning  of  Tun  10  of  Katun  8  Ahau,  no 
mention  being  made  of  any  particular  cycle.  However,  as  both 
Mr.  Bowditch  and  Professor  Seler  have  pointed  out,  there  is  no 
actual  difference  between  these  two  methods,  since  the  katuns 
in  both  instances  follow  each  other  in  the  same  order,  which  is 
the  all-important  fact.  This  change  from  the  Initial  Series 
system  of  dating,  practised  in  the  Usamacinta  area  to  the  count 
by  katuns  found  in  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  was  probably 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  latter  is  very  much  shorter  and  less 
complicated  to  record  than  the  former,  and  fully  as  accurate  as 
far  as  it  goes  ;  though  the  recurrence  of  a  date  which  will  satisfy 
given  conditions  is  not  so  restricted  as  in  the  Initial  Series. 

For  a  long  time  it  was  thought  that  the  Initial  Series 
method  of  counting  time  had  never  reached  the  cities  of 
Yucatan,  but  had  collapsed  in  the  Usamacinta  area  before  the 
great  northward  migrations  of  the  Maya  race ;  and  that  the 
Mayas  of  Yucatan  were  familiar  only  with  the  abbreviated 
method  used  in  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam. 

A  few  years  ago,  however,  Mr.  E.  H.  Thompson  discovered 
at  Chichen  Itza,  Yucatan,  an  inscribed  lintel  upon  which  an 
Initial  Series  was  recorded.  This  find  has  never  been  dupli- 
cated, and  the  Chichen  Itza  Initial  Series  has  remained,  up  to 
the  present  moment,  the  only  one  ever  found  outside  of  the 
Usamacinta  area. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  overestimate  the  archaeological 
importance  of  this  discovery.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say 
that  the  Chichen  Itza  lintel  has  given  us  the  most  important 
inscription  yet  recovered  from  the  whole  Maya  area.  This 
importance  is  due  to  the  following  fact :  Chichen  Itza,  by  the 
discovery  of  this  inscription,  becomes  the  only  city  mentioned 
in  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam  to  which  it  has  been  possible  to 
assign  an  Initial  Series  date.  Or,  in  other  words,  Chichen  Itza 
is  the  only  city  in  Yucatan  which  it  has  been  possible  to  date 


200  8YLVANUS  G.    MORLET 

relatively  with  the  older  cities  of  the  Usamacinta  area.  Chichen 
Itza,  therefore,  is  at  the  present  time  the  only  connecting  link 
between  the  Initial  Series  chronology  of  the  Usamacinta  and 
the  later  chronology  of  Yucatan  as  given  by  The  Books  of 
Chilan  Balam. 

We  are  now  in  possession  of  all  the  facts  necessary  to  an 
understanding  of  the  correlation  I  would  propose,  which  de- 
pends on  the  following  postulates  : 

(1)  That  the  sequence  of  the  katuns  as  determined  by  Brin- 
ton  in  his  "  Synopsis  of  Maya  Chronology  "  is  the  correct  one ; 

(2)  That  the  year  1536  in  Christian  Chronology  occurred 
sometime  during  Katun  13  Ahau  of  Maya  Chronology,  a  postu- 
late which  is  also  necessary  in  Mr.  Bowditch's  correlation,  as 
is  a  similar  one  in  Professor  Seler's ;  and 

(3)  That  the  Chichen  Itza  Initial  Series  records  a  contem- 
poraneous date,  a  fact  now  generally  admitted  by  students  of 
Maya  Chronology. 

These  postulates,  unlike  those  upon  which  the  correlations 
of  both  Mr.  Bowditch  and  Professor  Seler  are  based,  do  not 
ask  us  to  take  anything  for  granted  about  the  positions  of  the 
days  in  the  month,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  underwent  some 
kind  of  a  change.  For  this  reason,  the  correlation  which  I 
propose  lacks  one  great  possibility  for  inaccuracy  present  in 
the  other  two.  Moreover,  the  change  recorded  in  the  Chroni- 
cles states  clearly  that  it  has  to  do  primarily  with  the  months 
—  witness  the  wording,  "Pop  was  set  or  counted  in  order." 
That  this  change  did  not  disturb  the  sequence  of  the  beginning 
days  of  the  katuns  upon  which  my  correlation  depends  would 
seem  to  be  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  beginning  days  of  the 
katuns  follow  each  other  in  the  same  order  in  the  Chronicles 
both  before  and  after  this  change  without  an  apparent  break. 

The  correlation  I  propose  consists  of  two  parts : 

(1)  Fixing  the  position  of  the  Chichen  Itza  Initial  Series  in 
the  sequence  of  the  katuns  as  derived  by  Brinton  from  The 
Books  of  Chilan  Balam  ; 

(2)  Then  finding  the  date  in  Christian  Chronology  which 
corresponds  to  the  Chichen  Itza  Initial  Series,  by  using  the 
statement  in  the  sequence  of  the  katuns  that  the  year  1536 
occurred  in  a  certain  Katun  13  Ahau. 


MAYA  AND   CHRISTIAN  CHRONOLOGY  201 

After  this  one  point  of  contact  between  the  two  systems  has 
been  established,  it  is  a  simple  matter  of  substitution  to  find 
the  position  of  any  Initial  Series  in  Christian  Chronology. 

The  Initial  Series  of  the  Chichen  Itza  lintel,  expressed  in 
Maya  notation,  is  10-2-9-1-9  9  Muluc  7  Zac.  This  means  that 
the  date  9  Muluc  7  Zac  occurred  on  Kin  9  of  Uinal  1  of  Tun  9 
of  Katun  2  of  Cycle  10.  Our  first  problem  then  is  to  find  out 
with  what  day  Katun  2  of  Cycle  10  began,  because,  in  the  first 
place,  this  katun  included  the  Chichen  Itza  Initial  Series  within 
its  span,  and  in  the  second  place,  events  in  The  Books  of  Chilan 
Balam  are  rarely  recorded  more  exactly  than  as  occurring 
within  a  given  katun.  It  is  found  that  Katun  2  of  Cycle  10 
began  with  the  date  3  Ahau  3  Ceh  expressed  as  an  Initial  Series 
by  10-2-0-0-0  3  Ahau  3  Ceh.  This  katun  would  be  recorded 
in  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam  simply  as  Katun  3  Ahau ;  that 
is,  named  after  the  day  with  which  it  began,  and  omitting  the 
month  and  the  period  of  time  which  had  elapsed  from  the 
normal  date  4  Ahau  8  Cumhu,  as  previously  explained. 

Our  next  problem  is  to  find  in  the  Brinton  sequence  of 
the  katuns  a  Katun  3  Ahau  in  which  there  is  a  stated  occu- 
pation of  Chichen  Itza.  For  some  Katun  3  Ahau  contained 
within  its  span  the  Chichen  Itza  Initial  Series  which  we  have 
regarded  as  a  contemporaneous  date  ;  and  consequently  we 
ought  to  find  in  the  Chronicles  some  Katun  3  Ahau  in  which 
Chichen  Itza  is  said  to  have  been  occupied. 

A  close  study  of  the  sequence  of  the  katuns  shows  that 
there  are  two  katuns  beginning  with  the  day  3  Ahau  in  which 
an  occupation  of  Chichen  Itza  is  clearly  stated,  and  a  third 
during  which  the  site  may  have  been  occupied,  though  the 
Chronicles  do  not  record  the  fact.  It  remains  for  us  to  deter- 
mine which  one  of  these  three  katuns  corresponds  to  the  Initial 
Series  10-2-0-0-0  3  Ahau  3  Ceh. 

The  first  of  these  three  Katuns  3  Ahau,  which  we  may  desig- 
nate as  A,  occurred,  according  to  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam, 
toward  the  close  of  the  first  period  at  Chichen  Itza  shortly 
before  the  removal  to  Champoton.  The  second,  which  we  may 
call  B,  fell  about  500  years  later  near  the  middle  of  the  period 
of  The  Triple  Alliance  between  the  cities  of  Chichen  Itza, 
Uxmal,  and  Mayapan.     The  third,  C,  during  which  Chichen 


202  STLVANUS   G,   MORLET 

Itza  probably  was  occupied,  though  there  is  no  direct  state- 
ment to  that  effect  in  the  Chronicles,  occurred  about  260  years 
later,  some  time  before  the  final  destruction  of  Mayapan.  It 
was  during  this  final  period,  at  Chichen  Itza  probably,  that  the 
strong  Nahuatl  influence  so  noticeable  in  the  sculptures  of  this 
site  was  felt.  This  influence  may  have  been  due  to  the  fact 
that  Chichen  Itza  was  conquered  about  this  period  by  the  ruler 
of  Mayapan  with  the  help  of  Nahuatl  mercenaries,  to  whom  the 
city  may  have  been  given  as  a  reward  for  their  share  in  the 
conquest. 

That  A  was  the  only  possible  one  of  these  three  Katuns 
3  Ahau  which  could  correspond  to  the  Initial  Series  10-2-0-0-0 
3  Ahau  3  Ceh  is  proved  by  several  different  lines  of  evidence  : 

(1)  If  we  assign  tlie  Initial  Series  10-2-0-0-0  3  Ahau  3  Ceh 
to  either  B  or  C,  we  reach,  in  the  case  of  B,  an  Initial  Series 
8-8-0-0-0  6  Ahau  13  Mac  for  the  discovery  of  Chichen  Itza  as 
given  by  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam,  and  in  the  case  of  C,  an 
Initial  Series  7-15-0-0-0  6  Ahau  13  Tzec,  for  this  event.  To 
any  one  at  all  familiar  with  Maya  Chronolog}^  such  Initial 
Series  as  these  are  impossible  as  designating  contemporaneous 
events.  The  earliest  contemporaneous  date  at  Copan,  the 
oldest  site  of  the  Maya  culture  now  known,  is  370  years  later 
than  the  Initial  Series  given  by  B,  and  630  years  later  than 
the  Initial  Series  given  by  C. 

(2)  The  use  of  10-2-0-0-0  3  Ahau  3  Ceh,  as  the  Initial 
Series  value  of  A,  gives  9-0-0-0-0  8  Ahau  13  Ceh  as  the 
Initial  Series  of  the  earliest  event  recorded  in  The  Books  of 
Chilan  Balam.  This  Initial  Series,  which  denotes  the  begin- 
ning day  of  Cycle  9,  must  have  been  of  peculiar  significance 
to  the  Mayas,  since  every  one  of  their  dates  which  it  is  possible 
to  regard  as  contemporaneous,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  at 
the  beginning  of  Cycle  10,  all  fall  within  Cycle  9.  This  cycle 
saw  the  rise  and  fall  of  all  the  great  cities  of  the  Usamacinta 
area.  A  thousand  years  later,  when  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam 
were  written,  the  beginning  of  the  cycle  in  which  occurred  their 
Golden  Age  must  have  had  a  peculiar  importance  to  the  Mayas 
of  Yucatan,  and  must  have  seemed  to  them  an  extremely  appro- 
priate date  from  which  to  start  their  chronicles.  That  the  land 
of  Nonoual,  from  which  they  claim  to  have  come,  may  have  been 


MAYA  AND   CHRISTIAN  CHRONOLOGY  203 

mythological,  as  Dr.  Brinton  has  shown,  strengthens  our  iden- 
tification of  10-2-0-0-0  3  Ahau  3  Ceh  as  the  Initial  Series 
corresponding  to  A.  In  the  departure  from  Nonoual  in 
9-0-0-0-0  8  Ahau  13  Ceh,  which  this  Initial  Series  value  for 
A  gives,  we  have  not  the  record  of  an  actual  historical  event, 
but  of  a  mythological  event.  The  land  of  Nonoual  may  well 
be  a  mythological  place  agreed  upon,  perhaps  by  the  priesthood, 
at  a  much  later  time  as  the  original  home  of  the  Maya  race, 
and  the  beginning  of  Cycle  9  must  have  seemed  to  them  a  very 
appropriate  date  for  that  migration  to  have  started.  The  use 
of  either  B  or  C  as  corresponding  to  10-2-0-0-0  3  Ahau  3  Ceh, 
on  the  other  hand,  again  gives  impossible  Initial  Series  for  the 
opening  event  in  The  Books  of  Chilan  Balam  from  the  Maya 
point  of  view. 

It  is  very  significant  that  the  use  of  A  gives  such  an  impor- 
tant round  number  in  Maya  Chronology  as  the  beginning  of 
Cycle  9  as  the  date  of  the  earliest  event  recorded  in  the  Chroni- 
cles, ^  e.  the  departure  from  the  former  home  of  the  race. 

(3 )  A  third  reason  for  choosing  A  as  corresponding  to 
10-2-0-0-0  3  Ahau  3  Ceh  is  that,  if  we  do  so,  a  very  natural 
historical  cause  for  the  decay  of  the  Initial  Series  system  of 
reckoning  time  developes.  In  10-3-0-0-0  1  Ahau  3  Yaxkin, 
about  ten  years  after  the  Initial  Series  of  the  Chichen  Itza  lintel, 
the  Mayas  abandoned  that  site  according  to  The  Books  of  Chilan 
Balam,  and  removed  to  Champoton,  on  the  west  coast  of  Yucatan, 
near  Campeache.  Including  the  forty  years'  wanderings  in  the 
wilderness  before  reaching  Champoton,  and  another  fort}^  years 
after  the  abandonment  of  Champoton,  in  all  360  years  elapsed 
before  the  Mayas  returned,  and  occupied  Chichen  Itza  a  second 
time.  During  this  long  exodus,  a  great  part  of  which  was  spent 
in  wandering  without  fixed  homes,  the  knowledge,  or  at  any 
rate  the  general  use,  of  the  Initial  Series  may  have  been  for- 
gotten. The  use  of  either  B  or  C,  on  the  other  hand,  developes 
no  long  gap,  like  the  removal  to  Champoton,  in  the  sequence  of 
the  katuns  to  account  for  the  discontinuance  of  the  Initial 
Series. 

(4)  A  fourth  reason  for  using  A  as  corresponding  to 
10-2-0-0-0  3  Ahau  3  Ceh  is,  that  if  we  omit  the  part  dealing 
with  the  month  in  the  passage  from  The  Book  of  Chilan  Balam 


204  SYLVANUS   G.   MORLET 

of  Mani  used  by  Professor  Seler  in  his  correlation,  the  correla- 
tion I  propose  receives  satisfactory  corroboration  from  this 
source.  My  correlation  assigns  to  Stela  9  at  Copan  a  date 
between  the  years  284  and  304  A.D.,  depending  upon  what  tun 
of  Katun  13  Ahau  coincided  with  the  year  1536.  Using  the 
passage  in  The  Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Mani,  amended  as  I 
propose,  which  states  that  the  first  tun  of  Katun  5  Ahau  oc- 
curred in  1593,  a  date  282  a.d.  is  reached  for  Stela  9  at  Copan. 
This  date  282  a.d.  is  within  2  years  and  22  years  respectively 
of  the  two  limits  284  and  304  a.d.  reached  by  my  correlation  for 
this  monument.  Moreover,  if  we  care  to  assume  that  the  date 
of  Naput  Xiu's  death  was  9  Imix  19  Tzec  instead  of  the  9  Imix 
18  Tzec  actually  recorded,  as  Mr.  Bowditch  was  obliged  to  do 
in  order  to  reach  his  correlation,  my  date  for  Stela  9  at  Copan 
becomes  294  a.d.,  or  within  12  years  of  the  date  for  this  monu- 
ment reached  by  a  different  process  based  upon  a  different 
passage  in  the  Chronicles. 

A  comparative  idea  of  the  three  correlations  presented  in 
the  foregoing  discussion  is  best  gathered  by  a  review  of  the 
dates  in  Christian  Chronology  which  they  assign  to  the  same 
Initial  Series, —  Stela  9  at  Copan,  for  example.  Professor  Seler's 
date  of  125^5  B.C.  for  this  is  by  far  the  oldest ;  Mr.  Bowditch's 
date,  34  a.d.,  comes  next.  My  own  correlation  assigns  a  date 
to  this  monument  somev/here  between  the  years  284  to  304  a.d., 
which  an  assumption  made  by  both  Mr.  Bowditch  and  Professor 
Seler  in  their  correlations  would  narrow  to  294  A.D.  Finally, 
the  passage  from  The  Book  of  Chilan  Balam  of  Mani,  as  I  have 
amended  it,  gives  the  date  of  this  monument  as  282  a.d. 

I  suggest,  in  conclusion,  that  in  view  of  the  evidence  pre- 
sented, the  correlation  which  I  have  proposed  is  less  open  to 
error  than  either  of  the  other  two  for  the  following  reasons  : 

(1)  It  involves  no  textual  changes  in  the  original  sources  as 
do  the  other  two ; 

(2)  It  developes  no  anachronism  as  do  the  other  two ;  and 

(3)  It  presumes  less  in  its  postulates  than  do  the  other  two. 

Sylvanus  Griswold  Morley. 

School  of  American  Archaeology, 
Santa  Fe,  New  Mexico. 


